Saturday, December 31, 2011

Voting For Our Perpetual Enslavement

Up until the second George W. Bush term, I took the "lesser of two evils" approach to voting. I registered, I stood in line, and I "exercised my freedom" to "do my part" to chose my new set of rulers for the next period of time.

A single trite statement at Vox Day's blog woke me up from this dialectical belief in voting I had been brainwashed with: voting for the lesser of two evil's is still voting for evil.

Since abandoning the voting booth, I've only become more steadfast in my belief that abstaining from voting is the only logical course of action under the two-party system. Now...if Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, and he actually makes it alive to the General election, I'll re-register, get in line and cast my vote for the man who represents literal good versus evil, freedom versus tyranny...or to put it more starkly - the first non-Federal Reserve/Council on Foreign Relations stooge to have a realistic shot at the Presidency in my lifetime.

Because unless you vote for someone who stands for obliterating the status quo and ending the Bankster Party's 98 year stranglehold on political power (they've run the show since the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913), voting for any other candidate than one opposed to the Bankster party's agenda is simply assenting to our collective Slavery.

Gary North describes it plainly in his latest post:

Whenever any would-be borrower approaches a lender for a loan, he must be prepared to offer collateral, just in case he cannot repay the loan. If he defaults, the lender wants to be able to gain possession of the collateral, and obtain it quickly.

Every government that uses bond sales to maintain its level of expenditures must offer collateral. This collateral is its ability to extract sufficient revenue from those people under its jurisdiction so that it can make interest payments on the bonds.

As North titled his article: YOU ARE WASHINGTON'S COLLATERAL

Think comparing a typical American voting tax payer to slaves is a bit over the top hyperbole?

North makes an analogy that clearly shows that in fact calling voting taxpayers complicit in their own slavery a literal statement of fact:

In the South of 1850, a planter could buy slaves on credit. He pledged the future productivity of his slaves as collateral for the loan. He made sure that he extracted sufficient wealth from the slaves to pay off his loans. He lived well. They didn't.

Why did he borrow? In order to buy more slaves. He used leverage. He built his plantation with borrowed money and the heirs of kidnapped victims. It was good business.

The typical voter thinks of himself as a free man. After all, he has the right to vote. He does not think of himself as a slave. While trade union organizers – a truly hopeless career these days – still use the phrase "wage slave," it never made any sense, either legally or economically. A worker can legally walk away from his employer. A slave cannot.

What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes on money you earned with your own labor? Our slave masters will show up with guns in your face and convert you from a productive slave into another make-work project for the Industrial-Prison complex.

Washington has borrowed more heavily than any planter ever dared to or could do. Why so much debt? To get more leverage today. What is being leveraged? Promises. Voters trade votes for government promises. This system requires an ever-increasing supply of slaves in order to pay the interest on the debt. Problem: the rate of population growth is slowing. There will not be enough slaves to pay off the debt.

Voters have not thought through the implications of government debt. They do not perceive themselves as collateral for loans. But they are. This is the meaning of the phrase, "the full faith and credit of the United States government."

This is the reality behind the admonishment of those of us who see "democracy" for the illusory lie that it is. "The Right to Vote" is nothing more than a mass delusion of implied consent to the systemic enslavement of the people to the State.

If you vote, and you base your vote on the idea that the politician you are voting for has suggested some policy or platform that involves using tax dollars to achieve it, you are complicit in your own slavery.

Often times, when I write a post like this, I often get negative feedback from commenters that I'm condescending or coming across as thinking myself superior to the average citizen. The phrase "sheeple" seems to offend many.

My fellow tax slaves, I'm no better off than you. When I say WE THE SHEEPLE, I am including myself in that statement.

I'm every bit the slave you are.

The only difference is, I've decided I will no longer go along with it as much as possible. I will resist wherever and whenever I can.

As long as we have a Central Banking Cartel system based on fiat currency and fractional reserve banking, and a government that finances it's operations by borrowing from that cartel using WE THE SHEEPLE's future labor earnings extracted by force as it's collateral, a vote for any politician who is NOT seeking to end the Federal Reserve Banking system and the Government borrowing endlessly from it, is a vote assenting to your own slavery.

I am a slave like anyone else in today's Brave New World Order. I do not vote, because I do not wish to be complicit in my own slavery.

In the 2012 election, Ron Paul is the only vote that would be a vote against our collective enslavement.

I'd like to wish all my readers a happy new year. I can't believe I've been doing this blogging thing for 5 years now. Thanks to all for your reading, and thanks to all for your commenting.

Hau'oli Makahiki Hou

Saturday, December 24, 2011


Merry Christmas

The Sun Rises in the East

I started writing this comment, than realized it reached post-worthy length, so here it appears, rather than where it was originally composed.

I like Susan Walsh and her blog, Hooking Up Smart.

Interesting blog, interesting perspective, unique comment section.

That being said...after reading this entire thread and it's comments, Dalrock's take on this entire conflict looks accurate to me:

Susan appears to have taken my repeated efforts to keep any disagreement from becoming personal as a sign of weakness. Instead of debate the issue, she scolded me like a dog which just soiled the carpet. She has never yet either defended her claim or withdrawn it. In place of debate, she kicks up dust and makes accusations. She wanted to make it personal; she outright insisted. So be it.

Logic has cornered Feminine emoting.

Is Frivolous Divorce Overstated in the Manosphere?

Not just no, but HELL NO.

In the face of indisputable logic, dissembling is the female's primary defense.

This is what Susan is doing here.

Saying so does not mean I am "piling on" or "attacking" her (please note the first line of this post).

I'm just pointing to the rising sun and saying - "The Sun rises in the East."

When a woman engages her emotions because she feels attacked, this is what she defaults to. I've been married for 14 years and counting now, and believe you me, I understand this perfectly.

It's a very hard earned wisdom to learn to recognize this dynamic in action between your wife and yourself. Ignorance of this nearly lead to a frivolous divorce of my own on several occasions.

All women do this when they FEEL attacked...and it's obvious that Susan feels attacked here.

Dalrock has consistently reminded her (and everyone else) that he's endeavored to keep the debate impersonal and respectful, and focused solely on the conflicting ideas:

@Susan Walsh

I’m no victim, just a realist. Dalrock has had me in front of the firing squad several times before, lol.

This only makes sense if your definition of “firing squad” is “challenged me to back up my statements in a non personal way”. I’ve gone out of my way to frame any disagreements we have as not personal, and have repeatedly asked my readers to offer you the same courtesy. I only wish you had responded in kind. This is a sphere of intellectual debate, sometimes involving strong intellectual disagreement.

That you can’t separate this from the personal suggests to me that you aren’t cut out for what you are doing. You have a worldwide platform, are mentioned in the national media, and I’m sure have thousands of hits a day on your site. Yet you want to be allowed to say whatever you want as “your own truth”, and anyone who challenges this (even while taking pains to make it non personal) is a mean man who hurt your feelings.

IMO, Susan has failed to refute Dalrock's logic and he has accurately called her out on her dissembling.

All that being said, I'm not commenting here to declare a winner.

(I still like Susan, her blog and I still endorse that others continue to read her.)

Rather, I'd like to make an observation:

This entire debate is similar to an argument between a husband and wife, in which the husband is arguing with logic and the wife is arguing with emotion.

Logic vs. Emotion = masculine frame vs. feminine frame

The thread is an excellent example of Dalrock demonstrating "married man game" in this debate.

Of course, for a happily married father in a post-feminist world, he makes it look effortless.

It's much harder for a husband who is not aware of the subtext of his logic-based argument vs. her emotion-based response frame of interaction with his wife, and mistakenly thinks that they are both discussing a point of logic.

Husbands don't like to see their wives upset or angry. When we don't know any better (take the blue pill), we seek to appease and end the emotional onslaught, even when we know we are logically correct.

This is precisely how the AMC (Average Married Chump) often finds himself "winning" an argument, but still losing it in the long run. That's because he acceded to her frame instead of reaffirming his own.

You proved your point, you were 100% correct...yet you're still sleeping on the couch.

See the similarities with this current debate?

Because Susan is generally well regarded in the manosphere (note regular manosphere commenter Clarence's vigorous defense; note once again the first thing I wrote in this comment,) and has had good will and a history of positive interactions with Dalrock and many other manosphere bloggers, Dalrock could have relented his frame and offered Susan an easy out here and not held her feet to the fire of his logic in an effort to soothe this all over.

"Can't we all just get along?"

This is the temptation husbands face with upset wives.

Take note men. When you are right, and you know it...act like it, no matter how upset she appears to get, no matter how much of a soft spot you may have for her. That is the only way you both "win" an argument.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Blue Collar Blues

As I mentioned previously, I've been working the blue collar trades again to make ends meet. Been meeting a whole bunch of new guys I work with, and like most men who labor together for hours, we start to share our life stories.

I literally work with an entire crew of men who are all forced to work under-the-table just to survive, because working above board and on the books would result in garnishment of their wages by the State of Hawaii child support enforcement bureaucracy.

These are guys in their mid-40's with ex-wives getting 60% of their unemployment checks garnished...and unemployment checks are only a fraction of what these guys used to make before joining the swelling ranks of laid off workers in our Great Depression 2.0.

One guy's story is especially maddening.

He came home one day because a job had gotten rained out, only to find the mother of his two children getting her ass nailed to the bed by their neighbor. He went nuts punching holes in the wall and breaking things (but never touched her) while the neighbor ran out of the house. The cops got called and he ended up getting arrested for domestic violence.

She ended up with the house and a child support settlement.

He drives an old beat up pickup truck, she drives a lexus.

He lives in a small apartment, she a three bedroom house in an upper middle class property in suburbia, and her never employed loser boyfriend lives with her and the two kids.

She hasn't had any kind of job in 20 years. He's essentially paying her to live a comfortable life for her and her live-in surf bum fuckbuddy.

She gets 60% of his unemployment check, forcing him to find under-the-table work just to pay his own rent, food and transportation bills.

She regularly denies him visitation. He's filed more petitions than he can count to force her to allow him time with the kids he's supposed to have under their court adjudicated divorce settlement. They never enforce her violations of his visitation rights. The only thing he ever gets told is to file another petition. He finally gave up in frustration.

His son is now in his late teens...and he, like so many other boys raised in the typical broken home of our brave new world order, has gone off the rails and gotten involved in petty crimes, drugs and is now in rehab.

And now the ex-wife is telling him that once the boy turns 18, she thinks it would be better for the boy to come live with him in his one bedroom apartment.

While he is like most guys, a blue pill dude all the way, he fully comprehended the injustice of it all. He noted that of course, as soon as the son was no longer going to bring her child support revenue, only then does she now want their son to spend quality time with him.

In my new-coworker's words "Unreal, yeah? I'm basically a slave to her! I'm barely making ends meet, and she's buying jewelry and a new car ever few years...all paid for with my sweat and hard work!"

That's when I quipped "Now you know the truth. They call it No-fault divorce, but they treat it like it's "his-fault."

He laughed when I said that. He said he could only laugh now, because he'd spent so many hours just driving around the island while crying.

I assured him that I indeed knew very well precisely what he was talking about. His story is all too common nowadays. But he is finally hopeful. Despite realizing his ex is playing the system to the hilt, he's still happy to finally have a chance to get to know his son again and try and help him regain a shot at a productive, non-criminal life. And his daughter is only 13, so he's only got 5 more years left of his unjust peonage to his cheating whore and parasite of an ex-wife.

The real travesty of it all is just how common this whole system is. The family court system is a vampire, sucking the life blood of civilized society, one broken family at a time. This is unsustainable in the long run. I've seen this story so many times now in friends, family and acquaintances. Most people never grok the big picture of it all, because they are so consumed with the personal details of their own personal tragedies the system mires them in.

My co-worker told me "the system is broken."

I disagreed. The system is doing precisely what it was designed to do. He asked me what I meant.

Time to hand out a red pill.

I told him that the Federal Government literally matches the funds for every dollar taken from his check in child support. He knew that...he just never considered the implications of it. I said "Think about it...the Federal Government is literally paying the State of Hawaii to break up families like yours. It's an industry unto itself. It's official government policy to break up families. All those social workers and courts...they make their entire living doing what they did to you, to men all over the country."

He was speechless for quite awhile, working while thinking about our conversation intently.

Despite becoming a commonplace experience, most people fail to realize the larger truth that the broken family subsidized by the garnished wages of the working man is the Government preferred family model of our Brave New World Order.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Quiplinks V: Anti-Christ 2012 Edition

Down-low brother getting the lowdown on the down-low, 666 style. - Tex Arcane

There are actually only two distinct candidates in the 2012 election. There is Ron Paul, who represents the U.S. Constitution, and there is Newt Romney O'Bama, who represents the Bank Party. - Vox Day

I’m happy to announce that I’ve declared jihad on fat American women. - Roosh

There is no way the Prophet could have predicted, with all his infinite wisdom, that one day a single woman would have the girth of two. - Muhammed V

By raising women’s status and emphasizing “equality,” feminism has performed the psychological equivalent of a clitoridectomy on our society’s women. - Welmer

The female strategy has always been to nag and manipulate until men stop doing what men want to do and start doing what women want them to do. - Jack Donovan

The military is really looking for stupid individuals who haven’t figured out what Empire wants from them so they’ve taken the example of video games and turned their recruiting into, “Join, it’ll be just like a video game!” - Simon Rierdon

Off the clock, who cares how you spend your time? My life away from work is my own. Only the slave concerns himself with the value of his non-earning activities. - An Unmarried Man

How can so many people not notice what is going on? - Alte

In other words, Jesus ain’t the reason for our present tumultuous and discordant season. - Ulysses

Most ‘professional’ women are forced into an uncomfortable choice in life. - Rollo Tomassi

The only way game works is if it takes a realistic appraisal of human nature. - Roissy

Roissy was the voice that clarified a unified theory of these three separate fields: Seduction, Sociobiology, and Conservatism. - Frost

One way to look at the history of feminism is consider it as men and women working to remove women’s fears. - Dalrock

For those waiting for my endorsement (and I know you are) it is, of course, Ron Paul. - Default User

There’s no point in trying to band-aid the bullet holes on this country gasping for its last few breaths of greatness. - Terry

People are funny creatures. They don’t care about real things nearly as much as they care about imaginary things. - Delusion Damage

And remember everybody - violence against women must be stopped...violence against men - like a man being drugged, tortured, abused and sexually mutilated - gets good ratings. - Scarecrow

Get ready for some amazing parenting advice from a dude who doesn’t actually have kids! - Bronan

Men should remember that when a woman’s reaction to something is out of all proportion to the stimulus, there is something deeper that is troubling her. - 7man

In the matriarchy, breast cancer is not about breast cancer any more than rape is about rape. - Alcuin

What patriarchy built, hypergamy has tore down. - Peacemaker

Makes me wonder what the remaining 60% are smoking. - Johnny

As with health care, costs rise when the government distorts the market. - G.L. Piggy

We have set up a system which guarantees that everyone will have their heart broken at least once. Why the hell did we do that? - Cassandra Goldman

If you start running from the truth no matter how ugly, you’ll have to keep running and it’s very tiring in the long run… - Omnipotron

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Quit Being a Quitter

In my post advocating Newt Gingrich becoming the GOP Presidential Nominee, I stated that I quit voting. I haven't voted since 2004.

I just read latest post from Wes Messamore, the Humble Libertarian:

There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%.

Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he's also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he's now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%.

Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31). There are a lot of parallels between Paul's strength in Iowa and Barack Obama's in 2008- he's doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters:

-59% of likely voters participated in the 2008 Republican caucus and they support Gingrich 26-18. But among the 41% of likely voters who are 'new' for 2012 Paul leads Gingrich 25-17 with Romney at 16%. Paul is doing a good job of bringing out folks who haven't done this before.

-He's also very strong with young voters. Among likely caucus goers under 45 Paul is up 30-16 on Gingrich. With those over 45, Gingrich leads him 26-15 with Romney at 17%.

Looks like Mitt Romney has gone the way of Hillary Clinton, the establishment party pick in the 2008 Democratic Primaries:

Like the great, fallen front-runner of 2008, here is another well-funded, Establishment-blessed, presumptive nominee whose supposedly firm hold on his party’s greatest prize seems to be slip-sliding away.

There are differences to be sure, most centrally that Romney has yet to face a Barack Obama-like, central foe (though Newt Gingrich is now auditioning convincingly for that role) but instead has fought a series of rear-guard actions against a series of candidates-of-the-moment.

Right: Mitt Romney is going the way of Hillary Clinton. Wrong: Romney does face a central foe who will unseat him-- Ron Paul. The media-- including the article quoted above-- simply isn't reporting it. But it's happening.

If by some miracle Ron Paul does win the GOP nomination, I will quit quitting on voting. I'll get off my ass and re-register and go and vote. I'll even get my wife to re-register and vote for him too.


Monday, December 12, 2011

Comparing 1.0 to 2.0

Vox Day was at the forefront of the blogosphere and most of the mainstream Rockefeller Economists several years ago when he predicted the recession of 2007 would turn into the Great Depression 2.0. He even wrote a book entitled The Return of the Great Depression that came out in 2009, long before most other economists even began to have an inkling that the housing bust would lead to the return of the big D. Here we are, 2 years later, and the premiere Rockefeller Economist cheerleader and partisan hack, Paul Krugman, is finally getting around to admitting what Vox has been forecasting for years now.

I was in agreement with Vox back when he first began predicting this. I've been calling it "Great Depression 2.0" to my family, friends and acquaintances for a couple of years now. Many of them laughed when I first began using the phrase. Many no longer laugh when they hear me use it...and a few have begun using it themselves.

Yet many folks still remain oblivious. They don't understand what the huge fuss is. Things SEEM to be not too bad.

It got me thinking about the differences between Great Depression 1.0 and the current iteration:

- Unlike the 1.0 era, we now have a near majority of Americans who are Government employees. In Hawaii, the State Government is THE largest employer. While Government employees are supposedly paid their salaries and collectively bargained benefits with tax revenues raised from the private sector, we are now in a state for which Governments are simply borrowing astronomical sums of debt-based fiat currency to keep the illusion of running an already broken and unsustainable system going.

- During 1.0, the American society was a far different structure than it is today. The nuclear family was still the foundation of society. Men were by and large family men and dedicated providers. Women were housewives and mothers, and they supported their men as they struggled to find work to provide for their families. The lack of work led to mass migrations of families, with Heads of households looking for work to provide for their households. When there was no work to be found, they depended on charities (most of which were religious-driven) soup kitchens. Now, everyone is living off of extended unemployment benefits and the EBT food stamp system. No one need look for work, just wait for the government check in the mail.

- In our current era, we have an almost infinite supply of technologically driven distractions to keep the masses mollified. Some of the greatest entertainment spectacles available through mass media broadcasting offers mass distraction to every corner of the globe. During the decline of the Roman empire, citizens had to travel to the nearest arena to see the latest spectacle. Now, you just have to turn on a tv or computer or your "smart" phone.

- While Government debt financing has helped to keep the illusion of our unsustainable system going, the same holds true on a personal level. Many folks are living off of their credit cards and equity credit on their houses to keep up the urban and suburban lifestyle appearances of the 21st century.

Despite the many differences between then and now, I still think the end results are still going to be horrific and ghastly.

1.0 purportedly ended with World War 2. Millions of lives were ended, many cities, homes and societies were utterly devastated in the last great war.

We are now in approximately the 5th year of Depression 2.0. If History truly does repeat itself, we are only about halfway through this, and things are going to get much, much worse. The hard times are going to get a lot harder in the near future. When the welfare state ultimately collapses, mass starvation and civil unrest is assured.

I believe that there is no politician or political party that we can elect that is going to make a damn bit of difference. The system is what it is, and this economic disaster is the unavoidable results, regardless of who is in power - CFR Donkeys or CFR Elephants will continue to run the script that got us to this point, and is leading us to a predetermined outcome.

Something more spectacularly disastrous than WW2 is going to be the catalyst the ends the our Great Depression 2.0. Some sort of disaster which leads to permanent changes for society and the way we all live our lives - a New Order of the Ages.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

I want Gingrich as the GOP Candidate

Does this mean I plan on voting for him?

Hell no. I quit voting.

Got better things to do with my time than register and stand in line on election day to carry out a symbolic gesture that really amounts to nothing but reaffirming the status quo of our Brave New World Order and it's current trajectory.

Yes, I support Ron Paul and his "End the Fed" platform.

But I also believe we would be best served if Newt Gingrich were to become the GOP candidate to face Obama in '12.


If Ron Paul is exactly who he portrays himself as - a strict constitutionalist and avowed enemy of the federal reserve system - a legit electoral win by him will only end up with the good Dr. sharing the fates of JFK and Lincoln: those who control the fiat currency cartel system will never allow a substantial challenge to their monopoly on manufacturing debt-based money for their profit and our servitude.

I want Newt to be the candidate, because I believe his candidacy would wake up a hell of a lot more people to the reality that our "two-party" political system is nothing more than a charade designed to divide and conquer the masses. He's got plenty of baggage that would make many Social Conservatives stay home in disgust, or perhaps wake up to the truth of our so-called "two-party" system.

In either case, it really doesn't matter.

See, whether Obama or Gingrich "win" the presidency, their victory really represents the only true party in today's system: the Council on Foreign Relations party.

Now just exactly who are the primary founders of the CFR? Why, it appears to be the same folks who helped found the Federal Reserve system.

From John D. Rockefeller Jr.'s Wikipedia page:

"...crucially funded the formation and ongoing expenses of the Council on Foreign Relations and its initial headquarters building, in New York in 1921."

Imagine that.

From Newt Gingrich: Cashing In On His Political Connections

Every administration since Woodrow Wilson has staffed their major cabinet positions with members of the CFR, and Newt Gingrich has been right there since 1990 as one of their most articulate and distinguished members and spokespersons. He was already a member of the CFR for five-years before he became the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

We either vote for the CFR Donkey candidate or the CFR Elephant candidate. In either case, we end up with a CFR President and the CFR agenda continues as it always has.

Vote for change?

Not possible when your only available options all come from the same place.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Rockefeller Economics

Lew Rockwell columnist, Gary North, published a piece today that explains exactly how colleges, Universities and the mainstream media eventually anointed Keynesian economics theory as the only "legitimate" economics theory to be studied, discussed and implemented as official government policy. Everything else is considered fringe, or irrational supporters of an "already proven to have failed" Gold standard money system.

In short, the so called "conspiracy theory" is true.

In the exact same way the Rockefeller Foundation funded the feminist movement through Womynz Study Programs, and the funding of Albert Kinsey's research and report that mainstreamed and normalized sexual deviancy, as well as funding Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, so too did this entity buy out the study of economics.

Gary North points out how:

Higher education in the United States was transformed by Rockefeller money, beginning in 1902: the General Education Board. The GEB made grants to colleges only if they hired Ph.D-holding graduates of a handful of universities, which alone granted the Ph.D. This way, the universities could indirectly take over the rest of the colleges, which were mostly church-related. The strategy worked.

Rockefeller's academic empire included the University of Chicago, which he founded. From the turn of the 20th century, the University of Chicago's department of economics repudiated the use of gold in monetary affairs.

From 1902, the Rockefeller foundation used it's immense wealth to essentially buy higher education in this country. From that point on, it only took 11 years for the Rockefeller-bought PhD economists to promote a paradigm that eventually led to the creation of the Central Banking Cartel, the Federal Reserve.

This is why, as North points out:

There has never been a college textbook in economics that called the FED a government-created cartel that exists for the sake of the largest banks. This outlook shapes the thinking of the students who get certified to teach. They are literally unable intellectually to apply the economic theory in the chapter on cartels to the Federal Reserve System, despite the fact that the theory in the cartel chapter fits seamlessly onto the facts of the FED. Support of central banking is basic to the entire curriculum in modern economics.

The Rockefeller Foundation did more than use grant funding in the early 20th century to influence the entire study of economics. The Federal Reserve Cartel itself has continued the practice as well. North explains:

For decades, the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors (government) and its 12 regional banks (privately owned) have spent tens of millions of dollars (created out of nothing) handing research jobs to academic economists. The FED has literally bought off the profession. This story was concealed for years by the FED and its bought-off defenders, but it has recently surfaced.

North then links to the following Huffington Post article, Priceless: How The Federal Reserve Bought The Economics

The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession, an investigation by the Huffington Post has found.

This dominance helps explain how, even after the Fed failed to foresee the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, the central bank has largely escaped criticism from academic economists. In the Fed's thrall, the economists missed it, too.

"The Fed has a lock on the economics world," says Joshua Rosner, a Wall Street analyst who correctly called the meltdown. "There is no room for other views, which I guess is why economists got it so wrong."

Of course, it must be pointed out here that the Rockefeller's were instrumental in the creation of the Federal Reserve...not just by buying out the economics academic establishment, but also through "supporting" politicians who pushed through the Federal Reserve Act in the first place. This connection is noted at Wikipedia (for which I will not link to, but only point out here that Wiki does represent the so-called mainstream, politically correct source of info, and they too note the Rockefeller/Fed connection). This connection is not just in the minds of what useful idiots and misinformation disseminater's would claim is nothing more than the fevered imagination of "conspiracy theorists." The key politician behind the Federal Reserve Act was Senator Nelson Aldrich, John D. Rockefeller's son-in-law. From the Wiki article on the Federal Reserve:

In early November 1910, Aldrich met with five well known members of the New York banking community to devise a central banking bill. Paul Warburg, an attendee of the meeting and long time advocate of central banking in the U.S., later wrote that Aldrich was "bewildered at all that he had absorbed abroad and he was faced with the difficult task of writing a highly technical bill while being harassed by the daily grind of his parliamentary duties".[25] After ten days of deliberation, the bill, which would later be referred to as the "Aldrich Plan", was agreed upon. It had several key components, including a central bank with a Washington-based headquarters and fifteen branches located throughout the U.S. in geographically strategic locations, and a uniform elastic currency based on gold and commercial paper. Aldrich believed a central banking system with no political involvement was best, but was convinced by Warburg that a plan with no public control was not politically feasible.[25] The compromise involved representation of the public sector on the Board of Directors.[26]

Aldrich's bill met much opposition from politicians. Critics were suspicious of a central bank, and charged Aldrich of being biased due to his close ties to wealthy bankers such as J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Aldrich's son-in-law.

The Federal Reserve is not just a banking cartel with the exclusive rights to create money out of nothing - fiat currency - it has also established a cartel in economics research and study in both higher education and in the media. This is how they control the narrative to maintain their hold on the ability to enslave We the Sheeple with the modern day system of Bankster-run Serfdom.

As Ron Paul continues to gain momentum with his End the Fed campaign, he's not just taking on the Federal Reserve system, he's taking on the entire establishment of academic and mainstream media economists and think establishment that should rightly be identified as Rockefeller Economics.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Fasted Exertion

A Successful Hawaiian Hog Hunt

Ferdinand just reviewed Frost's book, Freedom Twenty-Five: The 21st Century Man’s Guide to Life over at In Mala Fide. I'll have my own review as soon as I get the time to sit down and read the whole thing and render my own assessment of Frost's work. That being said, I found a quote Ferdinand cited interesting, since it's something I've been experimenting with lately - intermittent fasting.

As Frost wrote:

I eat 1-2 meals per day, and I’m almost never hungry. The conventional wisdom states that you should eat five meals a day, which is true if you’re eating a typical American diet and need to constantly snack to maintain your blood sugar. On a high-fat Paleo diet, your body gets used to using dietary and stored fats as its primary energy source, meaning you can go long periods without feeling tired, “hangry” (hungry + angry) or like your stomach is eating itself.

I now frequently go 18 hours without a meal, and by the 17th hour, I feel a vague sense of “Oh yeah, food would be nice right now, wouldn’t it?” But I could just as easily work out, play a game of hockey, or take a nap.

I've been on both ends of this. When I was overweight and following the conventional wisdom that preached avoiding red meat, saturated fat and eating as vegetarian as possible, I was eating 5-6 times a day, and I had wildly fluctuating energy levels, a continually expanding waistline, and late afternoon energy crashes, and a feeling of being befuddled and groggy that required a 30 minute nap just to try and function normally.

Before the weight loss, it was the steady energy levels and no longer having to take a daily nap that was the first major change I noticed once I gave up the SAD and began eating primal. The weight loss took a few months to notice.

But for the first several years, I basically would call my diet "low carb" rather than paleo. I cut out all carbs except for cruciferous veggies. No potatoes. No rice. I still ate 3 meals a day. When I went hiking or hunting, I'd make sure to carry a bunch of snack food (paleo-type stuff, of course - jerky, nuts, cheese, meats etc.).

Upon encountering the practice of Intermittent Fasting in the paleosphere, I didn't really pay much attention to it at first. I basically skipped over any post I came across regarding the topic. After all, I had stabilized my energy levels, lost a bunch of weight and never felt better, why should I fast?

But the longer I stuck to eating primal, the less I felt like eating 3 square meals. Without consciously doing it at first, I began to skip my lunch and start only eating breakfast and dinner. Being a (former) cubicle jockey in business to business sales, I used to pack a daily lunch to eat at my desk.

After several days of not eating my lunches, I started paying attention to the intermittent fasting blogging from the various paleosphere luminaries like Mark Sisson, Richard Nikoley, et al.

But it was J. Stanton's seminal post, Eat Like A Predator, Not Like Prey that finally gave clarity to the theory behind IF for me.

Most importantly, now that you’re no longer eating huge plates of sugar (‘carbohydrates’) and greasy seed oils, you’ll find that big, hearty meals don’t make you fall asleep. You’ll also find that it’s much easier to go without food now that your body is re-accustomed to burning fat.

Aha! This must be why I no longer had an appetite for lunch, given my daily breakfast of bacon, eggs, sausage, mushrooms etc. (fried in butter of course). I had now primarily become reliant on burning fat instead of carbs for my energy, and no longer needed to eat 3 square meals to keep my energy levels steady.

So I settled into a 2 meals a day routine for the past year. Than around August, Stanton posted another piece in which he wrote about hiking Mt. Whitney in a single day completely fasted.

Prior to this post, I had the idea that fasting while working at a desk all day was one thing...but taking on a rigorous physical activity while fasting?

So I thought I'd give it a try.

The next time I went hunting, I didn't eat my normal breakfast, and I didn't pack food.

The hunt lasted for about 8 hours, we caught a pig, and I had to pack it out with my partner...for the most part, carrying it uphill on our backs. Very intense exertion...with the only food in my belly coming from dinner the night before. When I was done, I was hungry, but not to the point of that shaky, sick feeling one gets when you are on the blood sugar roller coaster of a high-carb, SAD.

My experiences jibed with what Stanton related. So I weighed in with my own anecdotal commentary at his site to let him know I appreciated how his insight helped me gain my own:

I laugh at my younger self…when my boar hunting was defined solely as nothing more than a recreational pursuit to engage in with my friends. I did not understand what I was really experiencing by participating in the most primal act of being alive. The experience of fulfilling the naturally ordained role of the human as an omnivorous predator.

I used to pack my bag full of chips, nuts, candy, crackers, granola, energy bars, and gatorade, and have to continually snack while hunting Hawaii’s mountainous rain forests to keep my energy levels up to deal with the rigors of hunting boar with a pack of dogs in rugged terrain.

Now I hunt with only water in my pack. Like other predator species, I hunt hungry. To think an idea so simple — that a primal diet is optimal to engage in the most primal of pursuits — eluded me all those years as a young hunter. My former ignorance speaks to the level of propaganda and misinformation in our culture and its influence regarding our self-awareness of being a predator species.

I was acting like a hunter, but still eating like prey.

We live in a world socially engineered to indoctrinate the masses to make them ignorant of our species’ ecological niche as an omnivorous predator in the cycle of life.

Instead, we are inculcated into a mindset of being cattle in the great domesticated herds of “civilization.”

While hunting taught me the skills and knowledge to kill, clean and butcher prey, I did not embrace the logical conclusion of the hunt. I was squeamish about eating game when I had been raised on a lifetime of factory-farmed, manufactured feed products. I would only cut the most desired cut of meat from the pigs we caught (the tenderloin) and feed the rest to the dogs (they still get there share as their reward for catching it…but I take way more portions for my own family’s use now), and throw the offal and bones away. I used to use heavily flavored and sweetened sauces to try and mask the game flavor of the meat.

I was a squeamish hunter that did not truly relish the fruits of labor from the hunt.

Now, I harvest the liver and heart. I boil the bones to make stock. My only seasoning on the cuts of meat I harvest, is salt and pepper.

I relish the life sustaining harvest of the land.

As an omnivorous species, we all have a choice to make: eat like a predator, or eat like prey.

Now I prefer to eat my 2 meals a day - breakfast and dinner, but the point is, I don't feel like I have to. I'll frequently do things like yard work or repair projects first thing in the morning, hours before eating the first meal of the day.

As Frost pointed out, going paleo actually freed him up from constantly thinking about, planning and preparing numerous meals.

Predator species hunt, kill and gorge. It may be many hours or even days before they have another successful kill. If they required food to fuel them up for every single instance of physical exertion, most predator species would die of starvation, as one failed hunt would quickly lead to the lack of energy to successfully try to hunt again later.

Is "paleo" a "fad diet" as many detractors continually say? Last I checked, a "fad" diet CAN'T be adhered to for 5 years and counting like I've experienced.

A fad diet is typically nothing more than changing the type of foods you graze on or how often you graze. You may temporarily lose weight, but as long as you do not eat in accordance with your physiological design, you will always experience health problems.

Similar to the cows put into feedlots that require massive doses of antibiotics so that they do not sicken and die while being fattened on feed they were not designed to eat...eating foods you were not evolved or designed to is a recipe for ill health, and premature death.

Eat like a predator and find out for yourself.

Happy hunting.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Tolerance & Slow Motion Poisoning

In response to my Turkey Day post in which I resolved to avoid partially hydrogenated tainted food at my family's celebration feast, finndistan guy made a point for which I myself have contemplated as well:

About your memories on hydrogenated oily poisons.

First memory: Three years ago got bronchitis related to dust allergy and my laziness. did not go away for two weeks so I went to the doc. Got some antibiotics; and even if the bronchitis went away after a ten day regimen, those ten days were pure suffering. Talk about bloody diarrhea and such.

Second memory, a recent one.

I am lazy with dusting the house, so there was dust in the house, but I had no problem, zilch. Then one sunday; after a saturday party at a friend's, including little alcohol, and lots of "healthy vegan food" like whipped cream from oat milk, and milkless butter (took some questioning to get the words margarine out); I went to eat at a local ethnic diner. Lots of food. Almost binged.

The system did not recover from this assault, and for a week I was down, until few days ago; then I got a sore throat.

Realizing what is happening, I cleaned the house, but the throat turned into similar symptoms as the bronchitis three years ago.

I will not take any antibiotic I said to myself.

Since the binge, I had been eating clean, so there was not much to do there,

Took off from work, popped 15.000 ius of vit d every meal (2-3 meal per day), slept 12 hours, ate only food that I made (now am thinking of 100% my way (except the weekend alcohol) till christmas);

The same symptoms that took me ten days to clear three years ago, that took another friend two weeks, another three months (yea, this one is a grain lover); took two nights of 12 hours of sleep with enough tea and vit d, coconut oil, good butter and no processed crap.

The lungs went to crap on wednesday morning, now it is friday afternoon, and I have them running at 95%.

Definitely a placebo effect. Both on the negative effects of the vegan/processed stuff, and the positive effects on what i did to cure.

Placebo, yea.

I have distinct recollections of my health and well being prior to discovering the Weston A Price Foundation and the Paleo blogosphere and figuring out unconventional, anti-establishment truths regarding diet, health and nutrition.

I frequently lament to myself, "If I had known then, what I know now..."

From my mid-20's to my early 30's I thought I knew what eating healthy was, and I thought I knew what foods I should avoid. Yet I was overweight, had frequent allergy attacks, caught every cold and flu bug that I happened to come into contact with, and always took a really long time to recover. I frequently had chest colds turn into bronchitis and occasionally turn into walking pneumonia.

I also suffered from chronic asthma. I could not live without daily doses of asthma control medicine. I've had asthma since I was a young child, so I've always lived with it. I've become used to frequent attacks, and always carrying a rescue inhaler with me 24/7.

I used to also get an asthma attack every single time I exercised. Every single time. Usually withing 5 to 10 minutes of commencing some sort of physical activity or recreation, I would inevitably feel the tightness in my chest and immediately have to stop whatever I was doing and take a few puffs of my meds, hack out a few coughs and finally feel good enough to resume whatever I was doing.

My entire life, I was told by my HMO GP Doctor to avoid dairy, that my asthma was most likely related to milk allergy.

In hindsight, I now realize the truth is that I ate a grain heavy diet ('heart healthy whole grains!'), and the primary source of fat was Omega 6 rich vegetable/grain and legume oils. Margarine, low-fat/non-fat food products, and cooked with Canola, Soy and Olive oils.

Also ate a lot of commercial peanut butter brands, most made with partially hydrogenated oils.

When I first read the good folks at the WAPF article Know Your Fats, it was the first time I ever came across this piece of knowledge:

Saturated fats play many important roles in the body chemistry. They strengthen the immune system and are involved in inter-cellular communication, which means they protect us against cancer. They help the receptors on our cell membranes work properly, including receptors for insulin, thereby protecting us against diabetes. The lungs cannot function without saturated fats, which is why children given butter and full-fat milk have much less asthma than children given reduced-fat milk and margarine. Saturated fats are also involved in kidney function and hormone production.

My first thought here was "well fuck me." Then I kept reading:

The crux of Dr. Price's research has to do with what he called the "fat-soluble activators," vitamins found in the fats and organ meats of grass-fed animals and in certain seafoods, such as fish eggs, shellfish, oily fish and fish liver oil. The three fat-soluble activators are vitamin A, vitamin D and a nutrient he referred to as Activator X, now considered to be vitamin K2, the animal form of vitamin K. In traditional diets, levels of these key nutrients were about ten times higher than levels in diets based on the foods of modern commerce, containing sugar, white flour and vegetable oil. Dr. Price referred to these vitamins as activators because they serve as the catalysts for mineral absorption. Without them, minerals cannot by used by the body, no matter how plentiful they may be in the diet.

An honest assessment of my overall dietary patterns brought me to the point of realization: while I didn't oft eat white flour, I ate plenty of whole grain flour and bread based products like pasta. I also ate a lot of sugar, and yes, all the oils I was eating where largely the so-called "healthy" vegetable oils. I was following the mainstream advice to avoid saturated fats, minimize your animal foods consumption, and that a plant based diet was optimal for human physical health. This WAPF stuff was the very antithesis to everything I thought I knew.

And yet it also jibed with my personal studies regarding Hawaiian history and culture. I've read numerous history books, oral traditions, and observations made by Europeans who first came to Hawaii. They were full of references to tall, muscular, very fit, healthy looking people. And they ate plenty of animal foods - fish and all other sorts of seafood, dog, chicken and pig.

This is why I investigated further into the WAPF...and eventually coming to the Paleo Blogosphere, and began a massive turnaround in my diet, health and well-being.

I've been basically eating a nutrient-dense, traditional-based diet while doing my best to avoid neolithic agents of disease for close to 5 years now. The transformation in my health has been dramatic.

While I still have asthma (I will probably always have it), it has nowhere near the same effects on my life like it used to. I no longer carry a rescue inhaler wherever I go, and it took me 10 months this past year before I had to refill my prescriptions...prescriptions for which I used to have to refill every single month, 12 times a year at a minimum.

This was not a placebo effect. It can't be. The difference between then and now is just too dramatic.

This was discovering the difference between a diet rich in inflammatory-promoting foods, and anti-inflammatory foods. As I've frequently stated in the past, I basically follow Mark Sisson's 80/20 paradigm. In other words, the occasional indulgence of junk food for things like special occasions.

For the most part, that's been my occasional dessert after dinner indulgence. I've never noticed any problems or residual effects when I have done this. But even in these cases, the primary NAD I'm indulging in is sugar. Even on my "cheats" I try to avoid partially hydrogenated oils. (I really do miss the local Hawaii favorite, the Malasada - A type of doughnut in which Portuguese sweet bread batter is deep fried and coated in sugar).

But there have been a few times where I eating deep fried appetizers at a restaurant or party. I began to notice whenever I did this, I'd start to get asthma attacks within an hour or so.

Onion rings, french fries, or deep fried chicken (chicken katsu), doughnuts, all the stuff fried in partially hydrogenated oils (which is to say 99% of you eat anything deep fried from a restaurant), I always get asthma attacks within an hour or so, and sometimes multiple attacks over the course of the next 24 - 48 hours. But I never really paid much notice, as over the past few years in which I indulged on such occasions, were really few and far between.

But last year, I simply threw all caution to the wind and just pigged out at my family's partially hydrogenated Thanksgiving. I ate bread, dinner rolls, salad dishes containing mayo (soybean oil), loads of gravy (made with partially hydrogenated oil and wheat flour), and various desserts for which I know the crusts contained the crap too. Up to that point, having eaten "clean" for up to 3 years prior, it was quite the Omega 6/Hydrogenated oil indulgence.

I spent days with constantly recurring asthma and allergy attacks - which was how my life used to be on a daily basis when I ate the SAD. I had forgotten just how miserable I really was when I ate the neolithic agents of disease on a daily basis.

Is this nothing more than a placebo effect?

From my recollection, my attitude at the time was "I eat so good now, I'm doing so much better, this one time holiday gluttony won't affect me much! This is my cheat day, I'm with my family, let's just eat it all up and enjoy this without any worries."

Prior to that, the occasional indulgence like a few fries or onion rings or a piece of fried chicken may have caused me to have a small asthma attack, so no biggie, I'll just dose up on the meds and go back to eating good again.

So now I'm left having similar thoughts as finndistan guy. Am I having a placebo over-reaction? Or is it that when I used to consume these oils and other neolithic agents of disease regularly, did I have some sort of tolerance to the continual ingestion of inflammatory food products? Did largely removing this poison from my diet make me that much more sensitive to it when I actually do "cheat" and eat it again?

Of course, prior to changing my diet, I basically had to use asthma medication every several hours, both night and day, 24/7/365. I used to always double check to see if my inhaler was in easy reach whenever I went to bed so I could simply reach out and grab it for use when I would invariably wake up in the middle of the night with another asthma attack...usually several times, every night. So maybe I always had that same reaction to these oils, but simply managed my reactions to it by a constant dose of medications?

Now I'm not trying to make the case that my asthma is solely linked to the food I eat. I think it's more complex than that. I now believe my asthma is related to my immune system response to environmental allergen exposure (I'm hyper-allergic to dust mite allergens which are plentiful in Hawaii)...but my diet also affects my immune systems ability to deal with allergen exposure as well.

In other words, when I eat pro-inflammatory foods, my immune system becomes more susceptible to reacting to allergens, making it more likely I'll experience the bronchial tube spasms of an asthma attack.

For my own experience, the vast improvement in my asthma and allergy condition is the ultimate proof I need to validate the principles of the paleo-type diet. This is why I get annoyed when clueless people call the paleo diet a "fad."

There's so much more to your diet than simply your weight.

Ah, what the hell. Maybe I really am just a loon, and it's all just a placebo effect.

Thursday, November 24, 2011


I've been away from blogging for a bit because things for myself have taken a turn for the worse on the economic front. My company has gone out of business and myself and all of my colleagues have been laid off. My occasional foray into blue collar side work to supplement the income has now become my only option to keep the roof over our heads and food in our mouths. I've been working long hours doing hard work, and still sticking to my martial arts training regimen in the evenings. I've been too tired to blog.

That being said, it's Thanksgiving, and I'm grateful that I've still got the opportunity to work. Since the hard times began over 3 years ago, I swore I'd do all I can to avoid going on the dole and signing up for food stamps and other welfare programs I am morally and principally opposed to. I will do whatever it takes to stick to my principle of independence.

Deansdale requested I and a few other bloggers write a piece about "The top 10 things you can do to improve your marriage." I take it this question is based on providing advice for men already married, so things like "carefully pick the right woman" doesn't apply, since you've already made your choice.

I'll do this David Letterman style and countdown from 10 to 1:

10) Read Roissy's entire archives. All of it.

9) Read Athol Kay's blog archives and buy his book.

8) Now that you've read these works, take a hard and honest look at your situation. Face the ugly truth about your issues. Are you an AMC? You can't fix your problems if you don't even recognize what they really are in the first place.

7) Live your life so that you can be 100% honest at all times. This does not mean you have to tell her everything you are thinking or feeling at all times. Discretion and circumspection are the keys to being honest while keeping the peace. Live so that you do not have to ever lie out of fear of upsetting her, or lying to yourself with rationalizations so that you justify behaviors you may do that will hurt or destroy your marriage. When it comes to marriage, honesty is the best policy.

6) Understand the concept of FRAME. Avoid playing into her frame. This is especially important if she ever issues you an ultimatum of any sort. The minute you take her ultimatum at face value and make a choice, you've submitted to her frame and you've lost either way.

5) Learn to recognize when she's "shit testing you" or "fitness testing you."


3) Their are two sorts of relationship patterns men develop with their wives over time, especially if you have children together - a woman's basic nature to act as a mother will begin to apply to you. She will begin to act like a motherly authority to you. You have to be aware of this dynamic and shut it down as soon as she starts to treat you like you're one of her children. Remember this saying, "You are not MY Mother. I have one already. You are my wife."

2) Learn to say No when you have good reason to. Make it stick in the face of resistance and emotional outpouring of anger, sadness and/or tears.

And finally, the number one thing you can do to improve your marriage:

1)Realize that the only person you can change is YOURSELF. You can't change her. You can only change your behaviors, your patterns and your routines and hopefully see if she responds favorably to the changes you effect in yourself.

Finally, for this year, I resolve to avoid any and all partially hydrogenated feed products at my family's Turkey feast. I'll probably indulge in some sugary dessert, but the memory of how shitty I felt for several days last year after eating all the grains and partially-hydrogenated crap should be enough to help me resist temptation.

Happy Thanksgiving to all who read this.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011


The word for today is "Bureaugamy."

You won't find this word in any dictionary. I picked up a couple of weeks ago from some commenter at some manosphere website. I've since forgotten who wrote it where (if someone points it out here, I'll edit this post and attribute it to it's orginator -- I think it may have been Zed over at Dalrocks...I'm not sure.)

The word is used to describe the modern cultural practice in which a women essentially mates with the State welfare bureaucracy to provide for her children, since she does not have a man fulfilling the role of provider for her offspring.

Great word. What else is there to say about it?

Until now, not much else...which is why I didn't bother trying to write about it after I'd already forgotten who I first heard it from in the first place.

But an article over at that I was reading with my morning coffee, made the word come to my mind once again. The article dealt with the result of Jesse Ventura's lawsuit against the TSA for violating his Constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizure. The article made a salient point that helps to clarify the big picture of the how and why we are going through so much cultural upheaval, economic distress and an ever expanding leviathan police state - and it's certainly related to the concept of Bureaugamy.

Becky Akers writes in Ventura's Venture Against the TSA:

He called it the "The Fascist States of America" and thrilled patriots everywhere when he promised, "I will never stand for a national anthem again. I will turn my back and I will raise a fist" after "a U.S. District Judge dismissed [his] lawsuit against full-body scanners at airports" on a technicality.

In that suit, "Governor Jesse Ventura, a/k/a James G. Janos … [sought] a declaration that the TSA [Transportation Security Administration] and DHS [Department of Homeland Security, the TSA’s über-bureaucracy] have violated Ventura’s Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to airport security searches."

Mr. Ventura added, "It’s really sad … [The judge] claimed her court didn’t have jurisdiction. But this is a constitutional question…"

Actually, it isn’t – at least to Our Rulers. And not just because they’re evil tyrants who spit on the Constitution. They are and they do, but what Mr. Ventura bumped up against is monstrously worse, something far more dangerous, entrenched, and systemic. Yet it remains so incognito and unsuspected that our hero might want to investigate it for his series, "Conspiracy Theory," on TruTV.

The culprit is a totalitarian nightmare known as "administrative law." And when we victims assume the Constitution reigns supreme, Our Rulers laugh: they legally (even if unconstitutionally) replaced it about a century ago with administrative law.

You’re undoubtedly more familiar with "administrative law" by its acronyms: IRS, BATF, DHS, DEA, SEC, FDA, FCC, FAA, TSA…in other words, bureaucrats.

Light bulb moment! This Judges rejection of Jesse Ventura's lawsuit ripped back the curtain to reveal the beast behind it, pulling the levers of the machine that has ripped the Constitution to shreds and became the primary impetus in forging our Brave New World Order dystopia.

The bureaucracy of "administrative law" is the actual law of the land! By invoking administrative law, the Government has effected an end run around Constitutional law. This is why we are all in some way or another, in a bureaugamous relationship with our Government, whether we want to be or not.

Still not sure how this works?

Aker's explains:

..."administrative law contains all the statutes, judicial decisions, and regulations that govern [bureaucracies]. It is the body of law created by administrative agencies to implement their powers and duties in the form of rules, regulations, orders, and decisions," says West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Astounding, isn’t it? Agencies write the laws that empower them to write laws. They set the rules of the game they play against us, enforce those rules, and judge us when we violate them in "administrative hearings." Meanwhile, a single agency in a day can churn out more laws – euphemized as "regulations" – than Congress can all year.

Do you get it now?

This is precisely how so many citizens Constitutional rights are regularly ignored and blatantly violated by the various Bureaucratic Agencies who truly rule our land with an iron fist and unreasonable and unflinching cruelty.

The bureaucratic agencies under "administrative law" jurisdiction are the literal tentacles of the leviathan police state deliberately violating our rights and our freedoms and turning the USA from the land of the free and home of the brave, into the land of the fee and home of the slaves.

So where do these agencies derive their powers from? Most of these bureaucracies have their powers delegated to them by Congress. And therein lies the rub: Congress is specifically prohibited from delegating it's powers to a third party entity.

US Constitution, Article 1, sec. 8:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

How to get around this Constitutional restriction? Easy, set up a Bureaucratic agency, who than makes and enforces regulations instead of legislating laws. The names are changed, but in practice they are the same. In fact, regulations now carry more weight than most laws passed the old Constitutional way via legislative deliberation!

The rejection of Jesse Ventura's lawsuit claiming the TSA violated his Constitutional rights clearly shows we the sheeple where the true power is being wielded in this country. The precedence is set.

Administrative Law of the Bureaucratic Agencies trumps the Constitutional Law of the individual citizenry.

Aker's concludes:

What would have happened had the court heard Mr. Ventura’s case? The same thing that has happened in other, similar ones: it would have ruled in the TSA’s favor, implicitly relying on Congress’ delegation of power it never had – power that is virtually limitless under the administrative regime. The TSA can do as it pleases, providing it asserts such criminality helps it carry out Congress’ mandate to "protect" transportation – and its perverts take care to constantly prattle just that preposterous justification.

So long as we sue the TSA – or any bureaucracy – for violating our Constitutional freedoms, courts will rule against us and smirk while they do. The remedy for administrative law’s totalitarianism lies in abolishing bureaucracies, not pleading with Our Rulers to defend us from them, pretty please.

There you have it. Bureaucratic violations of Constitutional rights are based on the stated agency's justifications for some form of so-called safety and security on some person or entities behalf. This holds true across the entire spectrum of bureaucracy and the administrative regime that truly rules the country.

If bureaugamy is the marriage of citizen to the bureaucratic state (like the single mother relying on the State to redistribute taxes to provide for her Fatherless household), than what we really have is an arranged marriage shotgun wedding. We had no choice, and we had to say "I do" with the business end of a firearm wielded by a uniformed representative of the Bureaucratic State at our back.

If only we could use divorce to destroy the institution of Bureaugamy as surely as the Bureaucrats used it to destroy the institution of Monogamy.

Friday, November 11, 2011

False Prophets & Teachers

Matt 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

I'm not a member of any Christian church's denomination.

I don't attend a church service.

But I have read the Bible (KJV) multiple times. While I'm certainly not a biblical scholar, I do believe I understand the overarching morality and guidelines the Bible seeks to impart on believers.

has been on a tear lately in going after Christians who teach subversive, false doctrines that appear on the surface to be "Christianity."

As someone who doesn't have a dog in the denomination-competition hunt (who's got the true doctrine, who's worshipping traditions are true to God's command, etc.), my interpretation of the Bible is based solely on my own quest to understand truth.

I haven't stepped into a church and listened to a sermon in over 16 years - save for the occasional wedding, baptism or funeral of a family member or friend I've had to attend.

Yet Biblical principles are the foundation of my moral belief. The Golden Rule, the 10 commandments and all that. I guess part of my brainwashing I endured for the first 14 years of my life did have some positive influence on me.

Many writers and commenters in the anti-establishment/politically incorrect sphere of teh interwebz oft note how feminized many Christian church's have become. That was the case of the church I grew up in, where men are demonized and women lionized on their pedestals of spiritual purity and moral superiority. Where the men commonly talked about their wives and referred to them as "their better halves."

This state of affairs is precisely why men have been driven from the church. It's why I left as soon as I was a teenager tired of being shamed and branded with the scarlet M in my particular sect I was born into.

But something happened to me today that gave me another epiphany. While driving and listening to my ipod (more specifically, the new Chickenfoot album...kickass!), when the album finished, and I didn't choose a new album to listen to, my ipod automatically shut off. The radio transmitter I use to listen to music on the car radio shut off, and I discovered that the frequency I was using now picked up the local Christian talk radio channel.

And apparently I tuned in right in the middle of some evangelical mangina blowhard raising holy hell from his broadcast pulpit, exhorting husbands for their failures in leadership and not taking care of their wives is the root of so many marital problems. It contained all of the stereotypes regularly pointed out in the manosphere regarding the feminization of the modern church.

I tuned in right as he began to discuss Ephesians 5:22 and how it doesn't mean what men "thinks it means." He then went on to explain what the verse means: that men and women in marriage are to be in mutual submission to each other.

In my opinion, there is a key point of discernment in understanding which preachers and pastors are teaching the false doctrine of Feminism disguised as Christianity - any preacher or pastor that seeks to soften, change or redefine the verse of Ephesians 5:22 to mean something other than what was plainly written: Wives sumbit to your husbands as unto the Lord so as to shame men and appeal to women, is a false teacher.

My understanding of the core message of the Bible, is that Traditional Christianity is a cultural program, designed to build strong families to form a strong society. A code of morality to build a community bound by faith and adherence to the same principles. It is Patriarchal to it's core.

In my view, Ephesians plainly lays out the hierarchy of leadership in marriage and in the home. Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, and husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church.

This authoritative sounding preacher, than made the case that this meant a husband and wife were to have mutual submission to each other, and not that the husband is the leader. He basically equated the command to love their wives, as just another way of saying husbands and wives are to submit to each other.

But than, this is what I get for reading the Bible and thinking for myself, rather than rely on someone else to interpret it for me.

He than went on a tirade reiterating repeatedly about how men are responsible for the sad state of marriage in the modern day, as they don't pay enough attention to their wives, and that by exerting any sort of authority makes him an unjust, domineering tyrant and that he's not loving his wife, like Christ loved the church.

This kind of sermon is female rationalization hamster superfood. No wonder the kind of Churches that preach this crap are full of women without nary a man in sight.

In practice, mutual submission doesn't work. You end up with a submission deadlock. Couple this with the modern Christian's warped view of the intrinsic virtue of the female simply for being born with a vagina, way up on her pedestal, and what do you have when husband and wife are practicing "mutual submission?"

You end up with a female-headed household.

This is not traditional, Patriarchal-based Christianity. It is the abomination and corruption that has driven men away from the many denominations that ascribe to this anti-Patriarchal shibboleths in droves.

This man, preaching from his pulpit and having a national broadcast by a syndicated radio network, was subtly and subversively distorting the Bible to shame men into becoming beholden to their wives authority, as well as the sole reason marriages are foundering in today's church. According to this broadcaster, anything less than mutual submission would mean he was being a domineering tyrant and not loving his wife like Christ loved the church.

Immediately following the sermon, a commercial came on, urging listeners to buy DVD's of the sermon just broadcast. It also included "kits" including visuals and supplemental materials for Pastors, Reverends and other Christian leaders to help SPREAD THE WORD.

Immediately after the sales pitch, another sermon began by some other sanctimonious holy roller, who began preaching on how anyone should feel guilty for not paying tithing to the church.

It brought to mind one of my favorite old school Metallica songs, Leper Messiah:

Send me money, send me green, heaven you will meet...make your contributions and get the better seat!

I turned off the radio in disgust.

When I got to work, I googled the name of the evangelist's radio program and found his website.

The website is shallow, littered with feel good phrases of psuedo-spirituality. It was just a showcase for all of it's content - TV, Radio and Magazine articles, that were all "subscriptions" that required fees (accepting all major credit cards) to access. In addition to mulitiple links to become a subscriber, it also had "donate to the ministry" buttons all over the place.


Here's the problem as I see it. Mass media broadcasting evangelists seem far more concerned with raising donations, selling books and DVDs and pimping for speaking fees and guest appearances at Churches than they are in actually preaching Biblical TRUTH.

This is the worship of Mammon. Worst of all, they've commercially packaged the materials that subvert Biblical truths and promulgate false doctrines to sell it to Pastors, Evangelists, Reverends and any other leader that listens to Corporate Christian radio and lets these lying liars lead them astray so they in turn can lead their own congregations astray.

I think this is one way in which feminism was able to weasel it's way into the doctrine of many corrupted Christian denominations. Feminism sells well, because it tells many women the lies they want to hear. Women who otherwise believe they are good Christians, and that submitting to their husbands has nothing to do with being a good Christian. And these women rule their homes and seethe in contempt for their beta-ized husbands and their "mutual submission."

In my humble opinion, if you ever hear any Preacher, Pastor or any other proclaimed Biblical authority make the case that Ephesians 5:22 does not mean Men are not the authority in the home, you are listening to the false doctrine of a church dedicated to the worship of Feminism and of Mammon, and not God THE FATHER.

Thursday, November 10, 2011


"That's my story and I'm sticking to it, 'cause I got no reason to lie..."

- lyric from the Black Sabbath song, The Thrill of it All

The word for today is Verisimilitude.

In a recent discussion I was in with The Bombastic Bardamu , he made a point that resonated with me regarding blogging:

Verisimilitude and ethos are nearly impossible to fake. Indeed, verisimilitude is practically the coin of the realm in the blogosphere - without knowing who each other are, we have to judge each other based on the truthfulness (intentional and/or inadvertent) in each other's writing...

...indeed, the best writers in the manosphere - has this verisimilitude.

I agree, not only is it the coin of the is the defining trait of any blogger in any sphere of teh interwebz. As I wrote in A Salute to Conventional Wisdom:

I learned far more about the world as it really is, and about myself and my place in the real world, from the influences and insights gained from blogs, message boards and websites that inspired true introspection and productive ruminations…than I ever did watching tell-a-vision, the movies, or from the approximately 13 wasted years I spent in the State of Hawaii’s institutionalized public schooling system.

I discovered that everything I thought was real and true, were nothing but lies, misconceptions, misdirections and misinformation designed precisely to capitalize on, and exploit my health and my productive capacity, all for the benefit of the system…at the expense of my mental, spiritual and physical well-being.

It was never a case of simply falling for any old story found anywhere on the world wide web. Like everything else in so-called civilization, it’s full of bullshit and lies as well.

But the difference is, you can actually read something that may sound crazy on the internet…

…but ruminate on it…and observe various manifestations of those ideas in real life…or even experiment on yourself…

…and eventually discern which virtual tirades, manifestos, declarations or diatribes are justifiable and based on truths…and which ones are crackpot lunacies and monomaniacal mental disorders vomiting their mental wastes into the virtual ether.

There is nothing more convincing than experiences and anecdotes from anonymous authors who may be writing thousands of miles away from wherever you are logged on…who can describe behaviors, results or phenomena exactly the way you perceive or experience these things too. Similarities in human experiences that cut across cultural, socio-economic and religious differences are compelling anecdotes that can override the powerful influence and the illusory authority of so-called conventional wisdom.

Verisimilitude is the defining factor in determining the veracity of any particular writer's advice or observations that run counter to the conventional wisdom.

Before becoming an avid blog reader, I was an avid mass media consumer.

I used to read a variety of newspapers, magazines, and watch a lot of television "News" and "Journalist Investigation" type shows. I used to think I knew a lot about a whole range of topics. I did not realize just how much of what I thought I knew was nothing more than literal Mass Media PROGRAMMING.

When I first began reading anti-establishment blogs and alternative media articles, I often encountered a writer saying "everything you think you know is simply what has been told to you by those who control the mass media narrative." I used to have a knee jerk, defensive attitude towards that observation: "Whatever...I think for myself!"

Except that up until I discovered the vibrant underground of politically incorrect blogging (on a whole host of topics), my thoughts were completely influenced by the TV and all of the reinforcement of the mainstream narratives from the mainstream print media.

Thanks to the verisimilitude of many excellent bloggers, I've discovered just how extensive and pervasive this programming was. I now recognize so many lies and deceptions the moment I see them...on TV, in the movies, in advertising and in print.

Lies. Everywhere you look in our Brave New World Order.

It's why I no longer read newspapers, nor watch any kind of news shows or any other sort of TV programming that's supposedly "FACT BASED REPORTING."

Thanks to the verisimilitude of people who blog, I've embraced a radical, anti-establishment lifestyle.

By eschewing commodity crops and advocating the consumption of grass-fed meat, pastured eggs, and local produce, we are making several very, very powerful enemies.

The medical and nutritional establishments hate paleo, because we’re exposing the fact that they’ve been wrong for decades and have killed millions of people with their bad advice.

The agribusinesses and industrial food processors hate paleo, because we’re hurting their business by not buying their highly profitable grain - and soy-based products.

The mainstream media hates paleo, because they profit handsomely from advertising those grain- and soy-based products.

The government hates paleo, because they’re the enforcement arm of big agribusinesses, industrial food processors, and mainstream media—and because their subsidy programs create mountains of surplus grain that must be consumed somehow.

Is anyone surprised that a government which spends billions of dollars subsidizing the production of corn, soy, and wheat, would issue nutritional recommendations emphasizing the consumption of corn, soy, and wheat?

And this is why, despite all their rhetoric, the vegans end up on the same team as Monsanto and Pepsico: their interests are aligned. - J. Stanton

I used to minimize my consumption of animal foods, and try to avoid saturated fats as much as possible. And I kept steadily gaining weight and trending towards obesity in my late 20's and early 30's. Thanks to the verisimilitude of bloggers in the "paleosphere", I now eat a diet heavy in animal protein and saturated fat. I avoid processed convenience and fast foods, and I've lost all that excess weight and find myself trim and in better shape at 38 years old, than when I was 28 years old.

I use salt at nearly every meal. I eat eat fried foods all the time too. The difference is I use naturally derived, minimally processed sea salt and I deep fry with coconut oil and pan fry with saved bacon grease and lots of butter. According to mass media conventional "wisdom," I'm supposed to be fat and suffering from high blood pressure. My latest blood pressure measurement from a couple of days ago? 116/72. I've been eating like this for years now.

Verisimilitude. The mass media narrative doesn't have it. The problem is that it is so pervasive, and broadcast through so many various mediums that reinforce each other, that it induces the illusion of verisimilitude. It took extreme cognitive dissonance to finally face the ugly truths after a lifetime of being steeped in the pretty lies of mass media programming. In other words, after years of eating non-fat dairy, vegetarian meat substitute products, non-dairy creamers, non-fat/non-stick cooking sprays, and a daily diet of whole-grain products and 'cholesterol free' spreads, I hit the point where I could no longer close the top button of my pants because my belly was sticking out. BUT I'M EATING HEALTHY?!?!??!?! WTF?!?!? So I logged on to the internet and began googling diet and weight loss, and eventually discovered the Weston A. Price Foundation...which eventually lead me to the Paleo Blogosphere.

Other ways in which the verisimilitude of certain writers in the blogosphere have influenced my life:

~ I avoid fluoridated water and use fluoride-free toothpaste.

~ I avoid using sunscreen, and sunbathe at every possible opportunity during the window of time for which conventional wisdom deems most dangerous - 11:00am to 3:00pm.

~ I occasionally smoke tobacco.

~ I eat as much red meat as I can afford.

~ I quit chronic-cardio exercise in an attempt to control my weight, and focus solely on weight lifting and high-intensity/interval training exercise.

Oh, and of course, thanks to the verisimilitude of guys like John Ross and other anonymous bloggers, I figured out my former attitudes and beliefs about gender and relationships were a recipe for failure. I didn't even grasp how I put the female gender on a pedestal and followed the mass media's emasculation program.


Recognize it when you see it. It just might change your life.